In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act, I have noticed a curious phenomenon in which some conservative commentators seem to be so desperate to find a silver lining to the ruling that they have abandoned all logic. Consider George Will, who wrote a column in the aftermath of the ruling that actually puts forward the argument that we conservatives should take the fact that Roberts didnt rely upon the commerce clause as evidence that there might be some constitutional limitation on the federal government after all. That would be a wonderful aspect of this ruling, if they had overturned the law! Instead, what we have is a monstrous precedent set in which the court re-writes a law in order to make it constitutional by imputing into the act a tax that had not existed in fact. This is an unmitigated disaster. I have heard a few who have noted hopefully that this ruling will energize the conservative base, and while thats probably the case, Im not certain I am so concerned about the political fall-out as I am about the long-run constitutional implications. You see, the political situation may permit us to repair the law, but it doesnt permit us to immediately repair the damage done to the body of case law upon which future courts will rely as precedents in their own rulings.

The other thing I have read is the bizarre notion put forward by the National Review that what Roberts did was more conservative because he exercised judicial restraint in not striking down the law. Balderdash! Once you realize the legal contortions through which Roberts arrived at this ruling, it makes no sense whatever to claim he hadnt acted as an activist. The convoluted logic by which he found a tax in a law that plainly states it does not contain one is an onerous breech of any notion of strict construction. I cannot conceive of any intellectually rigorous examination of this ruling by which this can be seen as a positive by anybody who is in favor of strict construction. When it came to the Anti-Injunction section of the ruling, it was held not to have been a tax, but just a few pages later, as Roberts performed mental gymnastics, he declared it was a tax after all.

On Thursday evening, Mark Levin summarized the matter better than anybody Ive heard speak to this matter, in part because he understands the legalities in question, his Landmark Legal Foundation having been a participant in this case, but also because he knew Justice Roberts years ago when they both worked in the Reagan administration. Levins critique of the decision mirrors most of my own, and indeed, there was one aspect I hadnt considered until Levin led me to it. That premise led me to yet another that I dont believe Levin has yet realized in full. What one must understand is that this ruling is an unmitigated disaster, and no search for some alleged silver lining can repair it.

What Justice Roberts actually did was to expand the definition of what constitutes a permissible tax . Congress is permitted to levy only certain forms of tax, and this one doesnt fit the definition of any of them. In dispensing with that issue, Roberts held that it didnt matter, and that words dont matter, and that plain-written legislative language doesnt matter. He also ignored the context of the law, and the intent of Congress. One version of this bill had an actual tax, but Congress could not pass it in that form, so Congress altered it to contain no tax. What John Roberts did was to ignore the actual text of the legislation, and to say that the labels didnt matter: If it looks like a tax, it is one. The problem with this is that it does nothing to restrain Congress from levying new taxes, and ignores the definitions of what sort of taxes Congress may enact. This is a wholesale extension of Congressional taxing authority because what Roberts ruled with respect to the particular form of the tax, insofar as the question of whether Congress had met the constitutional limits on whether it could impose it was effectively: Close enough.

That is offered to us as evidence of John Roberts alleged strict construction? Close enough? What this means, effectively, is that if Congress enacts some tax that it has questionable constitutional authority to levy, smiling John will be there to tell us its close enough, with every leftist monster on the court standing behind him to uphold it.

Ladies and gentlemen, there exists no silver lining to this ruling. All of the crackpot, delusional happy-talk from some conservatives in media is designed to make you feel better. Youve just lost both arms and legs in a brutal assault, but they tell you, you should consider this a happy opportunity to enjoy the comforts of a new wheelchair and mouth-controlled joystick. Youve just lost your family to a violent home-invasion, but, they tell you, you should view this as a chance to start over. The intention here is to keep you calm. The intention now is to serve a political end, while your country is dying around you. Your most sacred law, the US Constitution, has been crumpled and tossed into the ash-bin of history, and you are told you should do a happy-dance to the calming sounds of Oh Happy Days.

Id like you to inventory the whole of the conservatives to whom you listen, or whose columns and opinions you read, and I want you to take care to note which of them are imploring you to consider some silver lining. They are lying. They have good intentions, many of them, and they have contorted themselves into a formless spaghetti of reasoning in order to find some good in this awful plate of refuse youve been handed. Dont surrender your minds by sprinkling Parmesan on it and wolfing it down. Are there some limited political opportunities as a result of this decision? Yes, but they require the fulfillment of a whole laundry-list of if-then statements.

IF Mitt Romney is elected, and IF he doesnt sell us out, and IF we hold the House, and IF we recapture the Senate(and at least 60 votes) and IF the moderates in either house dont screw us, and IF Boehner and McConnell have the guts to do in repealing what the villains Reid and Pelosi did in passing the ACA, and IF they can deliver a bill to President Romneys desk, and IF John Roberts and the other liberals on the court can be replaced, and IF Mitt Romney can replace them with actual strict constructionists, THEN you might have a chance to undo this damage. IF any of these dont happen, your constitution is effectively dead as a restraint on government.

The danger of self-imposed delusions is that you come to believe them, like a pathological liar. It is by this form of self-delusion that weve permitted our country to lose its roots in reverence for the Constitution. We cannot defeat the statists by pretending this isnt the disaster that it is, if we can defeat them at all. I believe some talking heads know this, but do not want to yield to what will come in the wake of such a monstrosity. Theyre hanging on, stubbornly telling us that the stench of smoke reaching our nostrils is merely an air freshener of a novel scent. Rather than screaming Fire, and warning conservative Americans that the house is ablaze, the barn is wiped out, the surviving farm animals running loose in a frantic bid to stay ahead of the flames licking at their heels, many are now telling you that its all okay. It will be fine.

Except now there can be up to 300 million victims with standing to force Obama to prove he is eligible.

Monckton tells Lords: Obama presidency at risk

From the report:
Attorneys for anyone accused of a criminal offence signed into statute by President Obama under Art. I, s. 7, have the right to request access by their forensic investigators to the Hawaii Health Departments original birth record for Mr. Obama to satisfy them that the President is the President, the statute the statute and the alleged offence an offence. he suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process [14th Amdt.] where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment. Therefore, the courts will be obliged to grant any such defence request. By the supremacy clause (Art. 6), Hawaii must comply.

By the precedent set in Brady v. Maryland (373 US 83, 1963), T Does the issue matter? Advice from an eminent constitutional lawyer is that it does: The Constitution is the supreme law of the US. We amend it, or we abide by it. He expects a credible court challenge to the authenticity of Mr. Obamas birth certificate soon. If it occurs, and if the certificate is a forgery, the constitutional consequences will be grave.

Standing, by virtue of direct, personal harm involved in a criminal indictment/conviction? What types of cases would this involve?

Its like a French battlefield around here lately, with all the white flags being waved.

Sorry. I don't play pretend.

"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."

What this means, effectively, is that if Congress enacts some tax that it has questionable constitutional authority to levy, smiling John will be there to tell us its close enough, with every leftist monster on the court standing behind him to uphold it.

I don't believe that Roberts is going to be returning to the bench in October. I predict some kind of health issue or family issue will cause him to resign before the next term.

Oh, the silver lining is actually there. But it is tarnished, debased silver. The problem — and it is not a problem created by the Roberts Court — is that once the Sixteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution, the possibility of Congress taxing income, even laying a confiscatory tax on income, and waiving that tax if the income-earner engages in some action or other has been lurking in the Constitution as amended.

Of course, now that it’s legally and constitutionally considered a regressive income tax (the “penalty” is a percentage of AGI with a minimum — starting at $95 and rising to $695 per person over the course of a few years — and a maximum — the cost of the Federally defined “Bronze” insurance plan) someone needs to challenge the provision waiving it on religious grounds as a violation of the First Amendment (as interpreted by the courts in recent years).

12
posted on 06/30/2012 10:36:23 AM PDT
by The_Reader_David
(And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)

What Justice Roberts actually did was to expand the definition of what constitutes a permissible tax .

What Roberts actually did was pull a sophoric rhetorical prank, committing a "semantic fallacy," arguing about, not what it means and what it does, but what we call it. Having called something a tax, when it is not a tax, he then further distorted what constitutes a permissible tax.

In my view Roberts grade shool diplomma should be revoked. His antics are of a kind that only a statist could pull, left wing or right wing does not really matter.

MA sounds hysterical. Not one constructive idea regarding what to do about the situation. Just run in circles, scream and shout...especially at those who still have hope and are waiting to see the end of the matter.

If this is as bad as the doom-and-gloomers say it is, what do they propose to do to help fix the error? We already had the November elections scheduled and planned to vote against those who forced ObamaCare on us. It already had been approved by two branches of our government. What good does screaming at other conservatives do?

Things will keep getting worse until we quit voting for liberals. Because so many conservatives voted for McCain, GOP leaders felt free to nominate Romney. I shudder to think who GOP leaders will nominate in 2016 if conservatives vote for Romney.

Now is the time to draw the line! I’m voting for you this time, Tom.

No more RINO’s, no more liberals. The American people have had enough!

Anybody who looks to the federal government to protect us from the federal government is seriously delusional. And it was the constitution (bow your head, if not genuflect) that allowed this monstrosity that we live under. Nothing really changed on Thursday. Same old, same old.

JR - the worst part is that even if ObamaCare is repealed - the legal precedent is still there that the taxing power can be used to coerce social behavior and manadatory purchases of good and services from private companies as dicatated by the Govt under force of law.

What Roberts did yesterday was “FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM’ the USA as we knew it.

Thx Jim, but I fear/know that there just are not enough real men left in this country.

Janice Rogers Brown once talked about a book called “The Decline of Men”, she noted we used to think of a family as a man, a woman, and a child. Now, a remarkable new family pattern has emerged which she labeled “bureaugamy.” A new trinity: a woman, a child, and a bureaucrat.

Amazing how many men sit by and wait for Rinos to help them in the next election, how many men have sat by and let the gov steal their income, property, and now their private healthcare.

46
posted on 06/30/2012 11:11:09 AM PDT
by roses of sharon
("Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43)

If your fearful statement is true, it will be evident in time. I prefer to wait and see how things go in the coming weeks before condemning Roberts' decision as evil. If all is lost, well, there you go. But what if all is not lost just yet?

It is possible to be angry and motivated by this decision without giving up and throwing away every last possible advantage that may have been given to conservatives to correct this wrong.

Amazing, isn’t it? They’d rather whine about the loss than do something to win.

I think this is part of the grief process for some. And some just seem to prefer being losers. It’s easier than doing the hard work of winning elections, which is the only answer.

The people who aren’t just losers will burn themselves out on whining soon and get back to work. The rest never change and must be ignored. No candidate or judge is ever good enough, blah blah blah. It makes life so easy. You just sit back and proclaim that it’s all over, because the Man is holding you down! Wahh!

48
posted on 06/30/2012 11:12:30 AM PDT
by SaxxonWoods
(....The days are long, but the years are short.....)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.